Noise and nuisance
These regulations aim to limit the impacts from noise, other nuisances such as litter and dog fouling; and reduce the effects of noise from roads, railways and airports. In some cases the regulations include provisions to issue fixed penalty notices, and require authorities to conduct reasonable investigations.
You can find all 25 regulations that relate to noise and nuisance below to the left.
|
Environmental Noise (England) Regulations 2006 SI transposing the EU Environmental Noise Directive into English Regulation
|
|
Environmental Noise (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2008 Amendment of Environmental Noise (England) Regulations 2006
|
|
Environmental Noise (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2009 Amendment of Environmental Noise (England) Regulations 2006
|
|
Environmental Noise (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2010 Amendment of Environmental Noise (England) Regulations 2006
|
|
The Street Litter Control Notices (England)(Amendment) Order 2007 Amends legislation to allow litter control notices to be served on premises used wholly or partly for the sale of food or drink for consumption on the premises
|
|
Clean Neighbourhoods & Environment Act 2005 (Commencement No4) (England) Order 2007 Commencement Order for parent Act
|
|
Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005 (Commencement No 2, Transitional Provisions and Savings) (England and Wales) (Amendment) Order 2006 Commencement Order for parent Act
|
|
Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005 (Commencement No 2, Transitional Provisions and Savings) (England and Wales) Order 2005 Commencement Order for parent Act
|
|
Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005 (Commencement No 3) (England) Order 2006 Commencement Order for parent Act
|
|
Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005 (Commencement No 4) Order 2006 Commencement Order for parent Act
|
|
Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005 (Commencement No.1 Transitional and Savings Provisions) (England) Order 2006 Commencement Order for parent Act
|
|
Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005 (Commencement No.2) (England) Order 2006 Commencement Order for parent Act
|
|
Environmental Offences (Use of Fixed Penalty Receipts) Regulations 2006 Sets out circumstances when functions of an authority are “qualifying functions” for the purposes of which it may use its fixed penalty receipts – REVOKED BY SUBSEQUENT REGULATION
|
|
The Dog Fouling (Fixed Penalty) (England) Order 2002 Set rate for level of fixed penalty fine for dog fouling – REVOKED BY SUBSEQUENT REGULATION
|
|
The Litter (Fixed Penalty) (England) Order 2002 Set rate for level of fixed penalty fine for littering – REVOKED BY SUBSEQUENT REGULATION
|
|
The Litter (Fixed Penalty Notices) Order 1991 and the Dog Fouling (Fixed Penalties) Order 1996 (Revocation) (England) Order 2005 Revokes Orders prescribing the form of the fixed penalty notices
|
|
Dog Control Orders (Prescribed Offences and Penalties, etc) Regulations 2006 Provides offences and penalties for any dog control orders made under parent Act.
|
|
Environmental Offences (Fixed Penalties)(Miscellaneous Provisions) Regulations 2006 Sets rates for level of fixed penalty fines for a range of offences including littering
|
|
Environmental Offences (Use of Fixed Penalty Receipts) Regulations 2007 Sets out circumstances when functions of an authority are “qualifying functions” for the purposes of which it may use its fixed penalty receipts
|
|
Dog Control (Procedures) Regulations 2006 Explains the procedure under which dog control orders must be made.
|
|
Controls on Dogs (Non-application to Designated Land) Order 2009 This order designates land that dog control orders cannot be made; and revokes and replaces the Controls of Dogs (Non-application of Designated Land) Order 2006.
|
|
Environmental Noise (Identification of Noise Sources) (England) Regulations 2007 These Regulations identify the Noise Sources that needed to be mapped for the First Round of Mapping.
|
|
Environmental Protection Act 1990 sections 79 and 80 Place a duty on local authorities to take reasonable steps to investigates complaints regarding potential nuisances (noise, dust, odours etc.) and issue an abatement notice when they are satisfied that a nuisance exists or likely to occur or recur.
|
|
Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005 sections 101 and 102 Add insects and artificial light (with some exceptions) to the list of potential sources of nuisance (as listed in Environment Protection Act 1990)
|
|
Control of Pollution Act 1974 sections 63 to 67 Giver local authorities the power to, and set out how to, implement Noise Abatement Zones in which noise is closely controlled.
|
Tell us what you think should happen to these regulations and why, being specific where possible:
- Should we scrap them altogether?
- Could their purpose be achieved in a non-regulatory way (eg through a voluntary code?) How?
- Could they be reformed, simplified or merged? How?
- Can we reduce their bureaucracy through better implementation? How?
- Can we make their enforcement less burdensome? How?
- Should they be left as they are?
For example parts of the Control of Pollution Act 1974 are largely unused, perhaps you think they can be scrapped.
michael godbehere said on May 2, 2012 at 10:08 am
I think a noise pollution element should be introduced into the MOT test and it should be the same level for all vehicles wether car, motorbike or HGV. Motorbike noise is far louder than car noise and causes great disturbance on small country lanes. You can here a motobike several miles away while you only here a car a few hundread meters away, motobikes should have to have more noise deadening material on the engine and exhaust.
Roy Harris said on April 4, 2012 at 6:34 pm
fixed penalties should be set nationally by ministers. At present those for litter etc can be set locally at between £50 and £80. Some LAs have increased the levels so they are out of proportion with the magistrates sentencing guidelinbes and police issued fixed penalties. Police FPNs for litter are £50 whereas a council one may be £80, the same as for theft and more than throwing stones at trains.
MARION GIGLIO said on March 23, 2012 at 1:39 pm
the ruling i believe was made because the house of lords thought that ice cream was not a perishable product.
With the ice cream machines being lfor a liquid mix and has to be used within the day then it is now a perishable product which would be the same for fruit and veg mobilers etc which was the concern years and years ago.
We now have to take into consideration that people do not congrigate in the streets and have double glazing to add to our problems so we do have to make ourselves heard to make our living. these days.YES ICE CREAM IS A PERISHABLE FOOD AND WE DO NEED TO SELL BEFORE THE DAY IS ENDED AND WE NEED THE EXTRA HOUR AT NIGHT TO SELL THE LAST DROP OF LIQUID ICE CREAM
Laura Cooke said on March 12, 2012 at 1:26 pm
Stricter legislation should be put in place and more enforcing on the streets should be done in the way of littering/dog fouling. There should be a zero tolerance policy on litter and dog fouling especially. It is unhygienic, unsanitary and down right lazy. Community watch schemes should be put in place for littering where repeat offenders can be recorded (photo’s, vehicle registrations) and these people to be prosecuted and forced to do community service – picking up litter/dog faeces.
Mrs LMC said on March 6, 2012 at 9:25 pm
As an environmental health officer with 25 years of experience of working in all aspect of environmental health with an emphasis on nuisance I am constantly amazed that Section 79 and 80 of the EPA provide the only effective route to remedy a series of local harms accross a range of disciplines. These provisions need to be retained and effective enforcement enhanced to protect the basics of public health.
chris gillham said on February 23, 2012 at 8:23 pm
We desperately need much more legislation to counter the ever increasing noise intrusion in our lives, particularly from road traffic and air traffic. Why should the airlines that ruin people’s lives under their flightpaths not compensate those people? They are massively externalising their costs – consider that someone living in west London might reasonably value the intrusion of a single plane at 1p (i.e. be prepared to pay 1p for every flight that could be avoided by such a payment); consider then that such a flight could well affect 2million people. £20,000 is then the noise externalisation of the flight, suggesting that a typical flight should be exacting perhaps £100 per passenger just to pay for the noise. Why should this externalisation be allowed?
Angela Pingram said on February 21, 2012 at 2:29 pm
Regulations must clearly specify minimum standards and enforce them. Severe penalties must be applied for non-compliance. They must specify best practice to encourage improvement. Perhaps with the offer to earn the right of reduced tax or self-regulation for a short period if company can prove the application of best practice.
Make it clear on this site which pieces of legislation are no longer used and why.
Self-regulation would result in a reduction in compliance and must not be implemented.
Do you think anyone is listening to us?
Nickie Barnard said on February 7, 2012 at 11:55 pm
For starters make the regulations attached to this site reader-friendly.
Primary impact from road noise locally stems from motor vehicles with inadequate exhaust mufflers, drivers playing radios with excessive volume and malfunctioning vehicle alarms. These may seem trifling but without police intervention they simply proliferate. The local high street becomes a drag racing course on Sundays with motorcyclists popping wheelies and setting off store alarms. Maybe regulations exist but no-one enforces.
Voluntary codes will NOT work. Along with death and taxes the other thing in life that can be guararteed is that a large number of people will weasel out of clearing up their own mess. And when they can see others who are more affluent and powerful getting away with it then implementation becomes infinitely more difficult. What is needed is not LESS regulation but better IMPLEMENTATION.
How? ZERO TOLERANCE. And don’t ham-string the people implementing it with reams of butreaucracy.
Clear rules – clear directions as to what constitutes contravention – clear penalties.
Mr MJR said on January 5, 2012 at 11:56 am
I cannot believe any government serious about protecting the environment would even consider scrapping environmental legislation. I work as an EHO and can tell you from personal experience that 90% of companies do the bare minimum to comply with the current legislation (somewhat understandably in the current climate). If deregulation occurred to be replaced with some sort of self regulation/voluntary code I can assure you that pollution from business would increase exponentially. This in turn would be detrimental to public health and the environment – not exactly green. I can understand the desire to reduce regulatory burden on companies in the current climes but the cost to the public and the environment would be too high. And can i also point out that as an EHO working in the pollution sector I use the Control of Pollution Act 1974 on a daily basis so while its ok to say parts of it are largely unused, the majority of it is used and is extremely valuable, therefore perhaps and amendment to the act maybe in order but this would need to be done with great care and in depth consultation which would cost the taxpayer money which could be better used therefore – leave well enough alone.